If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

He clearly did invest in this team. How you can say he didn't is just beyond me. He apparently just didn't do it in a manner you agree with, but that's not from a lack of investing as you're trying to say. How does 120+ million in contracts qualify as not investing? If we take the average salaries of their contracts we're looking at being in the 65 million dollar range this year cap wise right now, and that doesn't even count signing Barbosa. That's not too far from the luxury tax.

Also you're splitting the smallest hairs ever trying to skirt away from the 'cheap' implication.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

He clearly did invest in this team. How you can say he didn't is just beyond me. He apparently just didn't do it in a manner you agree with, but that's not from a lack of investing as you're trying to say. How does 120+ million in contracts qualify as not investing? If we take the average salaries of their contracts we're looking at being in the 65 million dollar range this year cap wise right now, and that doesn't even count signing Barbosa. That's not too far from the luxury tax.

Also you're splitting the smallest hairs ever trying to skirt away from the 'cheap' implication.

Has little to do with how I agree with. The once in a blue moon opportunity to invest in such a way as to make a significant upgrade was available and we simply didnt make it. Period. Dont have to worry. It wont be there again. For a long time. The window is officially closed. Would it have meant a higher payroll and likely paying the lux tax at some point? probably...would it have meant a much more legit shot at competing for the title? probably....Thats the way business works. Potential investment with potential return. No guarantees. And yes, most of the teams that have any real legit chance at the title the next few years will be paying the tax. We chose not to go that route. Not coincidentally we wont be having any legit title chances now. IMO and time will tell.

If they let HIbbert and Hill walk and kept Amundson and Barbosa, then I wouldve called him cheap. Never once have I thought Simon was cheap in all of his years here. He paid the tax back in the late 90s. Not coincidentally we were competing for a title. Guess we arent going to do either now. Hence why I say shame on him and why Ive never been this disappointed in my over 40 years of following the team.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

Has little to do with how I agree with. The once in a blue moon opportunity to invest in such a way as to make a significant upgrade was available and we simply didnt make it. Period. Dont have to worry. It wont be there again. For a long time. The window is officially closed. Would it have meant a higher payroll and likely paying the lux tax at some point? probably...would it have meant a much more legit shot at competing for the title? probably....Thats the way business works. Potential investment with potential return. No guarantees. And yes, most of the teams that have any real legit chance at the title the next few years will be paying the tax. We chose not to go that route. Not coincidentally we wont be having any legit title chances now. IMO and time will tell.

If they let HIbbert and Hill walk and kept Amundson and Barbosa, then I wouldve called him cheap. Never once have I thought Simon was cheap in all of his years here. He paid the tax back in the late 90s. Not coincidentally we were competing for a title. Guess we arent going to do either now. Hence why I say shame on him and why Ive never been this disappointed in my over 40 years of following the team.

For the third time, what would moves would you have made this offseason?

also i dont know why would you expect the team go into the luxury tax ever. Simon has made it clear he doesnt want to pay it and wont. cant blame him when we are at the bottom of attendance still.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

For the third time, what would moves would you have made this offseason?

also i dont know why would you expect the team go into the luxury tax ever. Simon has made it clear he doesnt want to pay it and wont. cant blame him when we are at the bottom of attendance still.

Im not playing GM...this is a matter about principle not specifics. Theres any number of things that couldve been pursued. When you have that kind of capspace you have many ways to go. YOu can look to sign a free agent outright. We all know who those were. You can pursue a player thru a trade given the fact you can take back a lot more salary than u send out and that is very often times appealing. They could pursue some of these amnesty release players. Again. This is about asset management. Period. And in my mind we did an absolute terrible job of asset management. We didnt use our capspace at all. In fact we gave away players. Literally. Did we get better? Yes. But thats not the point. We likely couldve gotten a whole lot better, not only now, but down the road. With better asset management. A great deal of sacrifice was made to acquire those assets. To turn around and waste them..well...As to specific targets? Ill leave that to the basketball minds at the Pacers front office. Thats what theyre there for. But the point is its very clear now that they werent given the opportunity to do so...

As for Simon not willing to pay the luxury tax, I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, thats where you then get to the point that Simon should sell the team then. Its quite clear that the teams that will be competing for the title in the next few years will all likely be taxpayers. When we were competing for a title in years past there were times we were tax payers and Simon had said he was willing-didnt like, who would-to pay the tax to try and win a championship. Not so coincidentally, we werent at the bottom of the league in attendance then either....Its one thing to not want to pay the tax if you have no realistic chance of competing for a title. But given the core the pacers have they couldve made some pretty dramatic moves this offseason that certainly wouldve put them into lux tax land, but would also certainly make them legit title contenders and almost assuredly affected attendance dramatically. The decision was made not to go that way. And thats why i say..shame on you herbie...and why im pretty sure Bird chose to leave now. You dont get that sort of chance very often, hardly ever. To just let it go by the wayside....well...tough pill to swallow...especially after all the pain over the past few years to get into that position where you could have that opportunity.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

Huh? You realize we had about 10 million in cap space, right? We didn't have some monumental amount.

You realize that 10 million in capspace is actually a huge amount, right? And after their S&T with Dallas cleared up even more space, to which I said it appears theyre preparing for something bigger...because you just wouldnt give away players for a salary dump when youre under the cap unless you wanted that space for smething else. That is..unless you just wanted to dump salaries. But...foolish me....We were just dumping salary. In which case we probably shoulda waited til we could at least get something more. But apparently maintaining the ability to sign Barbosa to something other than a minimum deal was more important than that...oh well...

And dont you have better things to do than to debate how monumental 10 or 12 million in capspace is? you know like get together with kstat and find that missing offer sheet for roy hibbert?

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

10 million isn't huge by any means in a league where guys like Omer Asik are getting offered 8. And the "salary dump" trade netted us a whopping 1 million or so this year. You really thought that 1 extra million meant we were going to get something major that we weren't otherwise? It was more about getting something for 2 guys who aren't going to be here past this season, and one of whom probably wasn't going to be happy with his role. It was a long term decision, not short. Fans don't tend to like long term decisions, but without them you end up being Golden State, or the Knicks with Isiah Thomas. They're not sexy, but they're just as important.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

10 million isn't huge by any means in a league where guys like Omer Asik are getting offered 8. And the "salary dump" trade netted us a whopping 1 million or so this year. You really thought that 1 extra million meant we were going to get something major that we weren't otherwise? It was more about getting something for 2 guys who aren't going to be here past this season, and one of whom probably wasn't going to be happy with his role. It was a long term decision, not short. Fans don't tend to like long term decisions, but without them you end up being Golden State, or the Knicks with Isiah Thomas. They're not sexy, but they're just as important.

That ten million couldve gotten both Elton Brand and Luis Scola....Using Asik as an example...well....and the Dallas deal netted 2 million, not 1...if we are gonna go there...AND FOR THE 10MILLIONTH TIME...WE GOT NOTHING FOR THE 2 GUYS THAT WERENT GONNA BE HERE PAST NEXT SEASON...THATS THE WHOLE FRIGGEN POINT...HELLO. we couldve signed Mahinmi without ever making that deal...period....but we just gave the other two guys away...unless u think 10 million in capspace isnt enough to sign someone whose deal starts at about 3 million....10 is bigger than 3 in my book...but hey...again...i might be missing something...(like the condescending tone-im mimicking you) Had no problem getting rid of either one....but forgive me if im not gonna congratulate the front office for literally giving them away for absolutely nothing...unless cuban kicked in a million or two...in which case, given the circumstance i could definitely see why that would be being kept hush hush....

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

Im not playing GM...this is a matter about principle not specifics. Theres any number of things that couldve been pursued. When you have that kind of capspace you have many ways to go. YOu can look to sign a free agent outright. We all know who those were. You can pursue a player thru a trade given the fact you can take back a lot more salary than u send out and that is very often times appealing. They could pursue some of these amnesty release players. Again. This is about asset management. Period. And in my mind we did an absolute terrible job of asset management. We didnt use our capspace at all. In fact we gave away players. Literally. Did we get better? Yes. But thats not the point. We likely couldve gotten a whole lot better, not only now, but down the road. With better asset management. A great deal of sacrifice was made to acquire those assets. To turn around and waste them..well...As to specific targets? Ill leave that to the basketball minds at the Pacers front office. Thats what theyre there for. But the point is its very clear now that they werent given the opportunity to do so...

As for Simon not willing to pay the luxury tax, I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, thats where you then get to the point that Simon should sell the team then. Its quite clear that the teams that will be competing for the title in the next few years will all likely be taxpayers. When we were competing for a title in years past there were times we were tax payers and Simon had said he was willing-didnt like, who would-to pay the tax to try and win a championship. Not so coincidentally, we werent at the bottom of the league in attendance then either....Its one thing to not want to pay the tax if you have no realistic chance of competing for a title. But given the core the pacers have they couldve made some pretty dramatic moves this offseason that certainly wouldve put them into lux tax land, but would also certainly make them legit title contenders and almost assuredly affected attendance dramatically. The decision was made not to go that way. And thats why i say..shame on you herbie...and why im pretty sure Bird chose to leave now. You dont get that sort of chance very often, hardly ever. To just let it go by the wayside....well...tough pill to swallow...especially after all the pain over the past few years to get into that position where you could have that opportunity.

And who is to say they didn't pursue those opportunities? I don't know about you, but i didn't see any super stars changing teams this off season. Thats not a coincidence. You can't just snap your fingers and make a trade for Dwight Howard. The reason you aren't playing GM is cause there aren't feasible trades out there. Seriously, who are we supposed to trade for? You won't even name ONE player. Why is that? Who is this big difference maker that we could trade for? How about Durant? He's pretty good. We could send them all of our picks and any player they want. Whats that? They wont want to trade Durant? Oh. Westbrook? No? Ok...

Nash and Williams weren't coming here, no matter what we offered them. Williams wasn't gonna leave $25 million on the table from Brooklyn and Nash wasnt interested in Indiana. Other than Nash, the biggest name that switched teams was Joe Johnson. And the Nets traded a **** ton to get him. If the Pacers made that trade, I'd be pissed.

Your assuming there was a better option out there than to keep our starting 5, which was one of the BEST line ups in the entire league, together. I'm sorry, but I dont see those moves out there. Outside of bringing in a super star, why screw with what we got? And super stars arent just available for trade. Dwight's about the only one, and I don't want a one season rental. The starters weren't the problem. The bench was. They improved the bench. Were they sexy moves? Nope. Were the effective moves? Yep.

This team was damn good how it was constructed last year, with 3 young guys starting (1 of them new to the team), a veteran PF coming off an ACL tear (who was also new to the team) and our best player not being able to shoot for the first half of the season and had no training camp. Last year was NOT a peak for this team. It was the start. They have a full off season together, West is 100%, Hill is the official starting point guard and will have an off season to get into that role with his teammates. Granger shouldn't start so slow with no lock out. Roy Hibbert should continue to improve and so should Paul George. This 5 man unit will be even better than last year.

We lost in 6 games to the NBA champions. The Thunder lost in 5. This team is better than a lot of people are giving them credit for.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

And who is to say they didn't pursue those opportunities? I don't know about you, but i didn't see any super stars changing teams this off season. Thats not a coincidence. You can't just snap your fingers and make a trade for Dwight Howard. The reason you aren't playing GM is cause there aren't feasible trades out there. Seriously, who are we supposed to trade for? You won't even name ONE player. Why is that? Who is this big difference maker that we could trade for? How about Durant? He's pretty good. We could send them all of our picks and any player they want. Whats that? They wont want to trade Durant? Oh. Westbrook? No? Ok...

Nash and Williams weren't coming here, no matter what we offered them. Williams wasn't gonna leave $25 million on the table from Brooklyn and Nash wasnt interested in Indiana. Other than Nash, the biggest name that switched teams was Joe Johnson. And the Nets traded a **** ton to get him. If the Pacers made that trade, I'd be pissed.

Your assuming there was a better option out there than to keep our starting 5, which was one of the BEST line ups in the entire league, together. I'm sorry, but I dont see those moves out there. Outside of bringing in a super star, why screw with what we got? And super stars arent just available for trade. Dwight's about the only one, and I don't want a one season rental. The starters weren't the problem. The bench was. They improved the bench. Were they sexy moves? Nope. Were the effective moves? Yep.

This team was damn good how it was constructed last year, with 3 young guys starting (1 of them new to the team), a veteran PF coming off an ACL tear (who was also new to the team) and our best player not being able to shoot for the first half of the season and had no training camp. Last year was NOT a peak for this team. It was the start. They have a full off season together, West is 100%, Hill is the official starting point guard and will have an off season to get into that role with his teammates. Granger shouldn't start so slow with no lock out. Roy Hibbert should continue to improve and so should Paul George. This 5 man unit will be even better than last year.

We lost in 6 games to the NBA champions. The Thunder lost in 5. This team is better than a lot of people are giving them credit for.

Hmmm....I dont see too many Nets fans pissed...so you would be pissed if your team went out and got a superstar level talent? Well that certainly explains things. Theres a reason why some teams try so desperately to get them...and yes, you inevitably overpay....but unless youre fortunate enough to land a top draft choice the odds of getting one are pretty slim. And take a quick perusal past all the NBA champions and see how many of them didnt have one of these alpha dogs....Yes we were pretty good last year...nobody has said we werent..I certainly havent. And we very well could be better next year than we were this year...though that doesnt guarantee a better record...because other teams have improved as well....Im glad u love our team....I do to...thats not what this is about...this is about even though we could very well be better than last year, we quite possibly couldve been even better.

Youre really gonna tell me you would be pissed if the Pacers were being as aggressive as the Nets are in trying to improve? cmon man....Please dont give me lets just stick with our five and live or die with them. Cause if living is defined by winning a title, then we are gonna die...no ifs, ands or buts about it....and isnt that ultimately what this is all about...You take a look at what teams with significant capspace have tried to do with it-its a very small window where u can be very aggressive in trying to make major moves given the flexibility you have. Again, i wasnt necessarily an advocate of going aggressively after gordon, but that is certainly something along the lines of what we are talking about...Maybe they couldve gotten active and gotten involved in the Howard talks as a facilitator, not unlike Houston. At the very least, going after Brand and Scola wouldve been something. West has one year left on his deal. You couldve gotten Scola or Brand and done everything else we have done. Would that be better than what we have now?? Most likely. Youre gonna tell me you wouldnt be in favor of that? Cmon.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

Hmmm....I dont see too many Nets fans pissed...so you would be pissed if your team went out and got a superstar level talent? Well that certainly explains things. Theres a reason why some teams try so desperately to get them...and yes, you inevitably overpay....but unless youre fortunate enough to land a top draft choice the odds of getting one are pretty slim. And take a quick perusal past all the NBA champions and see how many of them didnt have one of these alpha dogs....Yes we were pretty good last year...nobody has said we werent..I certainly havent. And we very well could be better next year than we were this year...though that doesnt guarantee a better record...because other teams have improved as well....Im glad u love our team....I do to...thats not what this is about...this is about even though we could very well be better than last year, we quite possibly couldve been even better.

Youre really gonna tell me you would be pissed if the Pacers were being as aggressive as the Nets are in trying to improve? cmon man....Please dont give me lets just stick with our five and live or die with them. Cause if living is defined by winning a title, then we are gonna die...no ifs, ands or buts about it....and isnt that ultimately what this is all about...You take a look at what teams with significant capspace have tried to do with it-its a very small window where u can be very aggressive in trying to make major moves given the flexibility you have. Again, i wasnt necessarily an advocate of going aggressively after gordon, but that is certainly something along the lines of what we are talking about...Maybe they couldve gotten active and gotten involved in the Howard talks as a facilitator, not unlike Houston. At the very least, going after Brand and Scola wouldve been something. West has one year left on his deal. You couldve gotten Scola or Brand and done everything else we have done. Would that be better than what we have now?? Most likely. Youre gonna tell me you wouldnt be in favor of that? Cmon.

The Nets are not winning a title next year or any year with that roster. I think they will be good, but I don't think they will be better than the Pacers. Their best move was resigning Williams, which they had a huge leg up on everyone. They ridiculously overpaid for Lopez and added Joe Johnson's insane contract to their payroll. Joe Johnson is good, but he is not superstar talent. If he is, then so is Danny Granger. There is a reason they can't trade for Dwight Howard, because they have nothing left. Throwing money around isn't always the best way to go about things.

Teams don't just trade Superstars. The only one actually available right now is Howard. And he wont resign in Indiana. So traded for him would be moronic. I'm fine with the FO being aggressive and making moves, as long as they are smart moves. I don't see many moves that would have been feasible and smarter than keeping the starting 5 together, which was what our coach wanted and what our front office wanted. This franchise was built like this in the 90s and was good enough to win a championship (yes even teams that don't win the championship can be good enough to win one). They are doing it again.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

The Nets are not winning a title next year or any year with that roster. I think they will be good, but I don't think they will be better than the Pacers. Their best move was resigning Williams, which they had a huge leg up on everyone. They ridiculously overpaid for Lopez and added Joe Johnson's insane contract to their payroll. Joe Johnson is good, but he is not superstar talent. If he is, then so is Danny Granger. There is a reason they can't trade for Dwight Howard, because they have nothing left. Throwing money around isn't always the best way to go about things.

Teams don't just trade Superstars. The only one actually available right now is Howard. And he wont resign in Indiana. So traded for him would be moronic. I'm fine with the FO being aggressive and making moves, as long as they are smart moves. I don't see many moves that would have been feasible and smarter than keeping the starting 5 together, which was what our coach wanted and what our front office wanted. This franchise was built like this in the 90s and was good enough to win a championship (yes even teams that don't win the championship can be good enough to win one). They are doing it again.

You did read that the reason Williams signed in Brooklyn instead of DAllas was the nets acquisition of Joe Johnson. So lets see. You still think thats a bad move? You dont think theyre better than the Pacers. Thats fine...time will tell....But theyre front office and ownership are exhausting all possibilities and sparing no expense in order to go after a title and make their team as good as possible. Again, you would be pissed about such? Yea...ok...

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

You did read that the reason Williams signed in Brooklyn instead of DAllas was the nets acquisition of Joe Johnson. So lets see. You still think thats a bad move? You dont think theyre better than the Pacers. Thats fine...time will tell....But theyre front office and ownership are exhausting all possibilities and sparing no expense in order to go after a title and make their team as good as possible. Again, you would be pissed about such? Yea...ok...

lmao you really believe that? Its about the money dude. Don't kid yourself.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

The Nets are not winning a title next year or any year with that roster. I think they will be good, but I don't think they will be better than the Pacers. Their best move was resigning Williams, which they had a huge leg up on everyone. They ridiculously overpaid for Lopez and added Joe Johnson's insane contract to their payroll. Joe Johnson is good, but he is not superstar talent. If he is, then so is Danny Granger. There is a reason they can't trade for Dwight Howard, because they have nothing left. Throwing money around isn't always the best way to go about things.

Teams don't just trade Superstars. The only one actually available right now is Howard. And he wont resign in Indiana. So traded for him would be moronic. I'm fine with the FO being aggressive and making moves, as long as they are smart moves. I don't see many moves that would have been feasible and smarter than keeping the starting 5 together, which was what our coach wanted and what our front office wanted. This franchise was built like this in the 90s and was good enough to win a championship (yes even teams that don't win the championship can be good enough to win one). They are doing it again.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

lmao you really believe that? Its about the money dude. Don't kid yourself.

Well I guess we cant know for sure....but if he says it and really has no real reason to say it, then I tend to believe him. That and jason Kidd also echoed the same sentiments regarding the situation. While maybe the exception versus the rule, its not unheard of. One look no further than South Beach, New York, Boston, etc to find players taking less money to play with who they want and who they think gives them a better chance to win a title.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

Well I guess we cant know for sure....but if he says it and really has no real reason to say it, then I tend to believe him. That and jason Kidd also echoed the same sentiments regarding the situation. While maybe the exception versus the rule, its not unheard of. One look no further than South Beach, New York, Boston, etc to find players taking less money to play with who they want and who they think gives them a better chance to win a title.

has no reason to say it? how about the "hey i don't want to be seen as someone who is greedy as ****" What duo sounds better, Williams and Dirk or Williams and Joe Johnson? Its Williams and Dirk, every day of the week.

And you listed examples of the exact opposite of what Williams did. Players left money on the table to join a better team. Williams took the money and is on a worse team.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

See...this is the problem...you seem to think Im implying something. Im not...Im saying exactly what I mean. No implication necessary. I said it once and then said it again when you missed it the first time. The franchise had a very rare opportunity to invest in the future of this team. No implication. They had a chance to invest and did not. Does that make them cheap? Personally I dont think so. Like I also said, its the NBA, nothing is cheap. Most importantly, if i wanted to call Herbie cheap, Id call him cheap. Hes got the highest paid CEO in teh country-ie his son...so obviously hes not cheap. But hes definitely failed to not take this rare opportunity to invest in the team with a real chance of actually contending for a title. He chose not too...

Totally understand, thanks for clarifying. But next time please don't give everyone else a hard time for misinterpreting what you're saying when there is a possibility you weren't communicating as clearly as you thought, is all I'm saying. Cool?

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

Would it have meant a higher payroll and likely paying the lux tax at some point? probably...would it have meant a much more legit shot at competing for the title? probably....Thats the way business works. Potential investment with potential return. No guarantees. And yes, most of the teams that have any real legit chance at the title the next few years will be paying the tax.

The tax is MUCH more onerous of a proposition than it was under the previous CBA. Even MARK CUBAN is avoiding the luxury tax for chrissakes. That should tell you something right there.

If your argument is that the Pacers will spend up to, but not including, the luxury tax, then yeah we agree there. But I don't begrudge Simon for avoiding it in the current market.

And I disagree that "most of the teams that have any real legit chance at the title the next few years will be paying the tax." Not sure what you're basing that on other than your opinion; the consensus around the league seems to be that teams will in fact be much more likely to avoid the tax than before, perhaps with the exception of the Lakers and Knicks, Brooklyn and a couple other huge markets that can absorb those penalties. Maybe Miami if they're still bringing home championships. EDIT: And no I don't think those will be the only teams contending for championships over the next few years.

Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

The tax is MUCH more onerous of a proposition than it was under the previous CBA. Even MARK CUBAN is avoiding the luxury tax for chrissakes. That should tell you something right there.

If your argument is that the Pacers will spend up to, but not including, the luxury tax, then yeah we agree there. But I don't begrudge Simon for avoiding it in the current market.

And I disagree that "most of the teams that have any real legit chance at the title the next few years will be paying the tax." Not sure what you're basing that on other than your opinion; the consensus around the league seems to be that teams will in fact be much more likely to avoid the tax than before, perhaps with the exception of the Lakers and Knicks, Brooklyn and a couple other huge markets that can absorb those penalties. Maybe Miami if they're still bringing home championships. EDIT: And no I don't think those will be the only teams contending for championships over the next few years.

I have a feeling that Miami, LAL, OKC, Brooklyn, Knicks, Boston and the Clippers will all be in tax land from time to time over the next few years...I also happen to think that most all of the NBA champions in the next few years will come from that group.